BR Standard Classes on the Western Region

[The Johnster]

I think sir means 1963/4/5...

[The Stationmaster]

On 24/04/2020 at 12:22, MidlandRed said:

I think the change to the structure of BTC in 1963 with creation of the British Railways Board and less regional autonomy resulted in the Brush 4s and EE Type 3s. This along with regional changes (loss of north of Banbury, gain of ex SR withered arm, west of Salisbury and lots of rural back water branches), along with the first national traction plan in 1965/66 (the first real look at traction needs on a countrywide basis) also made huge differences to the WR. Mass introduction of diesel electrics, putting up (as redundant) batches of class 43s, 14s, class 116, 122, Railbus for inter regional transfer (along with class 37, but replaced with new ones). Then Beeching - the whole railway, but especially the WR must have felt under siege. 

A period of great change in numerous ways.  as far as Beeching is concerned I go along with Gerry Fiennes view of regarding him as the good Doctor and not as a malign presence.

 

The WR history of the late 1950s/early '60s was very much one of the slaughter of numerous branch and cross country routes and actually the pace of closure on teh Region slowed after Beeching's arrival but more importantly became much more carefully thought through instead of knee jerk closures here there and every where.  Managerially the region also suffered a huge change with the arrival of Stanley Raymond as General Manager who set about 'de-Great Westernising' everything he could find and slashing staff numbers and whatever other costs he could find to slash with a considerable impact on morale.  Fortunately Gerry Fiennes arrival from the BRB in 1963 led to a far more positive period of managerial consolidation and forward looking positivity - if he'd had his way the 4,000 hp diesel hydraulic proposal might well have come to fruition although with the BRB strongly against hydraulics his alternative proposal of buying a fleet of Deltics for the WR probably stood a better chance of achieving what he wanted for train services.  Incidentally loco purchase preferences had little to do with the Region in many respects - the EE Type3s for South Wales were bought in preference to Hymeks after competitive trials but heavily influenced by the Director of M&EE's own preference for diesel-electrics.  The Brush Type 4s, notwithstanding their numerous design problems, were similarlky an M&EE 'centre' preference for diesel electrics instead of hydraulics - the Region was not given any choice, it wanted more Type 4s and it was told what it would get.

 

So the WR staff and structure was being hit from several directions from the late '50s through to the mid '60s.  When I joined in 1966 there seemed to be a general attitude of positivity in many parts of the Region but an awful lot of staff at ground level were still reeling from a decade long onslaught of closures and redundancies with 'nibbling' budget cuts still going on so morale in some places was poor.   But then we were still doing that right though to sectorisation  times (after which some of us really went to town - I took £1 million out of my budget for 1993, the second year of sectorisation although as it happened I slightly increased the number of staff in my own organisation as I cut out 'bought-in' work).  But all through the previous 5 years I had almost continually taken out a post here or a post there in order to reduce my budget - and that was par for the course for all managers

 

The '70s was an interesting mixture of a period.  The dreary blue livery probably reflected and mirrored the pace of some changes but often BR was on the receiving end of outside events such as pits closing.  internally it was not a period of serious retrenchment as most of that had already occurred and in fact we started to see something far more positive as HSTs arrived to build a new shiny public image, and extra jobs.   And while some freight traffic declined other areas boomed rapidly bringing in good money and not only saving jobs but creating new ones.  So a dreary start to the decade, plus a big managerial upheaval in early 1974  (albeit nothing like as radical as what happened on the Region in 1985 when there were considerable job losses and many people finished up with a different job but with a 2 hour long commute each way to & from work. (Abercynon to Swindon was I think the worst anybody 'enjoyed').

 

So a far wider picture that a simple summary can preseent and an awful lot of outside influences which tend not to be immediately obvious.

[The Johnster]

44 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally loco purchase preferences had little to do with the Region in many respects - the EE Type3s for South Wales were bought in preference to Hymeks after competitive trials but heavily influenced by the Director of M&EE's own preference for diesel-electrics.  The Brush Type 4s, notwithstanding their numerous design problems, were similarlky an M&EE 'centre' preference for diesel electrics instead of hydraulics - the Region was not given any choice, it wanted more Type 4s and it was told what it would get.

This is certainly true, but the board level preference for electric transmission did not mean that the board could get any loco it wanted; the EE type 3s and Brush type 4s were all that was immediately available, and the WR needed locos quickly to avoid a repeat of the 1962 situation.  I was told, though I do not know if this is correct and perhaps Mike can shed some light, that the early deliveries of D68xx to South Wales were only possible because the Scottish Region had been willing to defer for a few months they had already put in.  Once the flow of type 3s started from Newton le Willows, it very rapidly became a flood and scrapping of 56xx and 42xx/5205s began in earnest.  The South Wales Valleys went from 100% steam freight and mineral in 1963 to complete dieselisation in 18 months, and by that time you were more likely to see a Brush type 4 than a Western on main line work, at least on the South Wales and Birmingham routes and they made a major impact on the Bristols as well.  The North to West had become wall to wall Brush type 4s.  We never really had Warships much on the South Wales route, and AFAIK only Severn Tunnel men signed TK for them in the Area.

 

There can be few, if any, places where the elimination of steam on freight work and it's replacement by diesels took place so very completely and rapidly as the South Wales Valleys; even to a 13 year old it seemed in 1965 to have happened almost overnight.  In fact we still had some steam working through from the Gloucester direction in the Autumn of '65 to Cardiff yards, and into '66 at Severn Tunnel or Gloucester, but the Valleys saw nowt but EE type 3s and D95xx after August 31st 1965, where there had been 100% steam freight only 18 months before.  We had a visit from Flying Scotsman in 1969, and KGV broke the ban the following year  running the Bulmer's train from Hereford to Severn Tunnel via Maindee East Curve.  It was a bit of a shock to enthusiasts and, with huge redundancies and major sheds like Pontypool Road and Neath Court Sart disappearing, or drastically reduced like Severn Tunnel and Ebbw Jc, a devastating blow to railwaymen.  The demoralisation was still palpable when I joined the railway in 1970.  

Edited April 25, 2020 by The Johnster

[MidlandRed]

Thanks - a difficult time for railwaymen and some great insight there into how it was.  As you say lots of complex contributing influences, both internal and external. 

 

Its relatively easy to look in hindsight but the BTC were somewhat frustrated by regions looking at dieselisation schemes on a parochial basis based on steam rostering - the WR produced more detailed proposals so it's possible to look at those - there's nothing to suggest the other regions did it better, but for instance the WR put forward a proposal for modernisation of local services and beyond by DMU at Birmingham in two stages (1955 and 57) requiring 58 motor cars (for 3 car suburban), 8 motor cars (for 3 car cross country) and 7 single units plus trailers for all sets. They were to replace 40 steam engines, 5 GWR railcars and 142 coaches. Staff saved were to be 1 driver, 72 firemen and 2 shunters. The scheme allowed for 21% spare cars, but despite a predicted 10% uplift in revenue the scheme was not expected to eliminate the deficit. You can see why by those figures! Some steam workings were to remain (referred to as either unremunerative or peak). However I recall steam stopping suburban services still operating out of Snow Hill in the mid 60s. Tyseley also ended up with around 40 3 car suburban and ten or more single car units by the early 60s. That stock (classes 116, 119 and 122) was comparatively reliable. 

 

At the time the original Hymek orders were approved the WR was still predicting a requirement for 400 Type 3s across their area dieselisation schemes -  I suspect the initial ScR transfers (Autumn 1966 to assist with traction problems (17 and 21) as well as elimination of steam), along with D6819-D6835 as an initial batch transferred to the NER (York initially) in the summer of 1966 - were a result of the WR over-estimating their loco requirement. The class 37 build was finished in 1965. 

 

Key benefits of building Hydraulics promoted by the WR had included weight saving for a type 4 along with cost. The first of those had evaporated by the time the 'new wave' of type 4s began trials (Lion, Falcon, DP2) and BR ordered the first 20 Brush 4s instead of Peaks. The second had evaporated with the knowledge of the costs of new hydraulics from BR works (much more than originally estimated). Add to that the extreme maintenance issues and even if some BRB officers may have been biased towards electric transmission for whatever reasons, the reasoning can be seen to go for diesel electric. 

 

There was a meeting of the Works Committee on 29th November 1961 and an item on hydraulic transmission involving the chairman (a BTC Member) and reps from the WR was referred to. The item was not cleared for publication in the minutes - is that the point at which the WR hydraulic issues came to a head? 

 

As we know, the WR north of Banbury, including the Birmingham Division moved to the LMR in 1963, and the Birkenhead/Snow Hill/ Paddington express passenger services changed from Western class diesel hydraulics to brand new Brush Type 4s, allocated either to Oxley (Wolverhampton) or OOC.

 

Ironically, from the summer timetable in 1967 the remaining New Street to Paddington services went over to class 43 haulage (WR had put 20 up for inter-regional transfer the previous year) - some were actually transferred to the Birmingham Division and could be seen at both Bescot and Tyseley for a while. They didn't last more than a year or so on this service and one or two were visible parked up at OOC bereft of nameplates at the end of the 60s. 

 

I share your thoughts, Johnster on the speed of dieselisation - it was generally done on an area basis and steam disappeared from some areas seemingly overnight. You only have to look at the influx of BR Class 2 Bo Bo (class 25) at Saltley in 1964 to envisage the effect that would have locally. Bescot was slightly later in that context, real changes happening when a number of class 24 appeared along with brand new D8134-8143, and some older ones in the D804x range. Overnight, 464xx and 76xxx hauled local trip freights went over to single class 20 or 24 haulage. These were followed by many newish class 25s (the 20s going to Toton and used with their indigenous ones in pairs). As you say quite a sudden and quick change for local enthusiasts. There were, however a few steam locos still in use at Tyseley at the time of Bescot's dieselisation. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by MidlandRed
spelling and additional info

[MidlandRed]

I must say I don't share Stationmaster's view on the corporate blue livery from the mid 60s - I always thought it was a patch of brightness, along with full yellow ends amongst a sea of matt grey steam locomotives and other filthy stock. The initial use of an 'egg shell' finish didn't help the plain blue MU stock but for instance the AM10s  (310) and 4VEPs had aluminium finish window frames and cast BR arrows so looked quite snazzy even when the blue quite quickly went completely matt. BR also failed abysmally at some points to keep locos mostly employed on freight duties clean. But generally, blue (along with blue and grey passenger stock) signalled a new brightness to the railway - dependent on your perspective i guess!! 

[DCB]

The corporate livery was a splash of colour in the mid 60s but turned into grey mediocrity when everything became blue.

As far as I was concerned Sectorisation brought the railways back to life, I remember vividly seeing my first railfreight grey loco, a class 37 Imperial, it was running light on the WCML and shone like silver in the sunlight.  Suddenly there was a difference between the train from Paddington to Fishguard  and one from Glasgow to Edinburgh. 47s in Red stripe Intercity livery,  Large logo blue, etc. It's why I model 1987  ish in the garden and 1957/62 indoors. The Blue era was just too depressing.

[Andy Kirkham]

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Managerially the region also suffered a huge change with the arrival of Stanley Raymond as General Manager who set about 'de-Great Westernising' everything he could find and slashing staff numbers and whatever other costs he could find to slash with a considerable impact on morale.

 

And of course Raymond succeded Beeching as BRB Chairman, However I have the impression that he's virtually forgotten nowadays. He is the only BRB Chairman not to have Wikipedia entry and his Google results are exteremely sparse - this is just about the only result to feature him:

 

 

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

And of course Raymond succeded Beeching as BRB Chairman, However I have the impression that he's virtually forgotten nowadays. He is the only BRB Chairman not to have Wikipedia entry and his Google results are exteremely sparse - this is just about the only result to feature him:

 

 

 

Interesting. This needs to be seen in the political background. There is contention whether Beeching was sacked or left of his own accord (he said he left). However a Labour Govt took over in 1964 with huge changes in policy towards public transport - Castle took over as Transport Secretary in 1965 but only until April 1968 - Stanley Raymond (later Sir Stanley Raymond) was appointed BRB Chairman on a much lower salary than Beeching, but continued to implement Beeching cuts against previously stated party policy (Castle implemented 2000 miles - half of the Beeching cuts). He was sacked in Dec 67 and paid the equivalent of his salary for his remaining 2 contracted years. He had sacked Gerry Fiennes in 1967 after publication (by Ian Allen) of his book 'I Tried To Run A Railway', which was deeply critical of BR management and Givernment Policy, also in 1967. 

Extraordinary that Barbara Castle should be so remembered as Minister for such a short period, but was responsible for a lot a momentous change, mostly affecting road transport, and was responsible for the white paper leading to the Transport Act 1968. This created the National Bus Company and PTEs (which would be responsible for transport planning and services in conurbations). Other things introduced under her:-

1) The concept of and subsidy for socially necessary railways.

2) Breathalyser

3) 70 mph speed limit

4) Front seat belts in cars

There's not much rail in there but item 1) is interesting. Castle was fundamentally interested in transport co-ordination and reducing road deaths, along with tempering the harshest of Beeching's proposals. I suspect Stanley Raymond was given the job of running the railways in a background of government reluctance to implement Beeching but with a budget that required major cuts and a desire to ultimately subside some lines - hence looking everywhere for perceived or identified inefficiencies to try and balance the impossible. 

I have to say I'd never even heard of his successor until just looking it up!! But of him, Beeching and Robertson most definitely. 

Lord Hurcomb was a Brit Pacific as far as I was concerned!!!! Anything more than 20 yrs previously to a teenager is irrelevant ancient history in my own experience!! 

Edited April 26, 2020 by MidlandRed

[lanchester]

Would it be unduly cynical to suggest that, while the Labour government certainly introduced the concept of social subsidies for railways, they were careful not to do so until most of the likely candidates had already been closed? And that this might account, for example, for the unseemly haste in beginning to dismantle the Waverley route, just a few months after the 68 Transport Act was passed and, I think, before its provisions came into force?

 

And am I right in thinking that in the 64 elections, Labour never actually said they would reverse the Beeching proposals. they just allowed it to be believed that they would! No actual fibs told.

 

Despite being a Tory by instinct, I have a lot of time for Mrs Castle and I am sure she was, as MidlandRed says, 'fundamentally interested in transport co-ordination', but I don't think she was allowed to do much in this regard. Two possible reasons: one, she was of course a girl, albeit a feisty one, in an age of smoke filled rooms, beer and sandwiches. Second, just as the Tories had a road lobby fronted by the ineffable Marples, Labour had its own road lobby in the form of the unions, both in the car plants and particularly the TGWU - whose influence in the party and the TUC well outweighed that of NUR, ASLEF and TSSA. (Younger readers may need to Google 'TUC' - don't hear much from them these days). And, considering what we now call the 'optics', a car for every family can be portrayed as delivering the benefits of the 'white heat of the technological revolution' (even if it is a dodgy Austin, Morris, Hillman...): an improved but still loss making Victorian railway, less so.

 

On a different matter, someone mentioned Serpell. Am I alone in thinking that report was actually the saviour of the rail network in that it forced politicians, economics gurus, 'taxpayer' lobbies and the chattering classes finally to look into the abyss and see what 'a railway that pays its way' actually meant?

[David C]

Politics aside (fascinating though it is), getting back to first few posts on this thread, the 82xxx class locos which were based briefly at Newton Abbott in the mid 1950s worked the Kingsbridge branch as well as the Moretonhampstead line. There's a not very good photo of two of them together on RMWeb somewhere or other ...  Its the reason I acquired a 1:76 scale version for Woodstowe ....

 

82001 was built in 1952 and only a very few years old by the time of my chosen period (mid 1950s). I reckoned it would have been a bit dirty, but not that unkempt and that is how I weathered it. Whilst browsing in the Model Railway Club’s library one evening sometime later, I came across a photo of it on a goods train on the Moretonhamstead branch in about 1955/6. It was immaculate!

 

David C

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 26/04/2020 at 08:26, Andy Kirkham said:

 

And of course Raymond succeded Beeching as BRB Chairman, However I have the impression that he's virtually forgotten nowadays. He is the only BRB Chairman not to have Wikipedia entry and his Google results are exteremely sparse - this is just about the only result to feature him:

I suspect some of that was done to Stan Raymond being intensely disliked (although that was hardly going to be any different on the WR due to what he did at Paddington) but whatever - he definitely didn't have the charisma and positivity of Gerry Fiennes so he compared badly when GF followed him into a job as he did at Paddington.

 

On 25/04/2020 at 20:52, MidlandRed said:

Thanks - a difficult time for railwaymen and some great insight there into how it was.  As you say lots of complex contributing influences, both internal and external. 

 

Its relatively easy to look in hindsight but the BTC were somewhat frustrated by regions looking at dieselisation schemes on a parochial basis based on steam rostering - the WR produced more detailed proposals so it's possible to look at those - there's nothing to suggest the other regions did it better, but for instance the WR put forward a proposal for modernisation of local services and beyond by DMU at Birmingham in two stages (1955 and 57) requiring 58 motor cars (for 3 car suburban), 8 motor cars (for 3 car cross country) and 7 single units plus trailers for all sets. They were to replace 40 steam engines, 5 GWR railcars and 142 coaches. Staff saved were to be 1 driver, 72 firemen and 2 shunters. The scheme allowed for 21% spare cars, but despite a predicted 10% uplift in revenue the scheme was not expected to eliminate the deficit. You can see why by those figures! Some steam workings were to remain (referred to as either unremunerative or peak). However I recall steam stopping suburban services still operating out of Snow Hill in the mid 60s. Tyseley also ended up with around 40 3 car suburban and ten or more single car units by the early 60s. That stock (classes 116, 119 and 122) was comparatively reliable. 

 

At the time the original Hymek orders were approved the WR was still predicting a requirement for 400 Type 3s across their area dieselisation schemes -  I suspect the initial ScR transfers (Autumn 1966 to assist with traction problems (17 and 21) as well as elimination of steam), along with D6819-D6835 as an initial batch transferred to the NER (York initially) in the summer of 1966 - were a result of the WR over-estimating their loco requirement. The class 37 build was finished in 1965. 

 

Key benefits of building Hydraulics promoted by the WR had included weight saving for a type 4 along with cost. The first of those had evaporated by the time the 'new wave' of type 4s began trials (Lion, Falcon, DP2) and BR ordered the first 20 Brush 4s instead of Peaks. The second had evaporated with the knowledge of the costs of new hydraulics from BR works (much more than originally estimated). Add to that the extreme maintenance issues and even if some BRB officers may have been biased towards electric transmission for whatever reasons, the reasoning can be seen to go for diesel electric. 

 

There was a meeting of the Works Committee on 29th November 1961 and an item on hydraulic transmission involving the chairman (a BTC Member) and reps from the WR was referred to. The item was not cleared for publication in the minutes - is that the point at which the WR hydraulic issues came to a head? 

 

As we know, the WR north of Banbury, including the Birmingham Division moved to the LMR in 1963, and the Birkenhead/Snow Hill/ Paddington express passenger services changed from Western class diesel hydraulics to brand new Brush Type 4s, allocated either to Oxley (Wolverhampton) or OOC.

 

Ironically, from the summer timetable in 1967 the remaining New Street to Paddington services went over to class 43 haulage (WR had put 20 up for inter-regional transfer the previous year) - some were actually transferred to the Birmingham Division and could be seen at both Bescot and Tyseley for a while. They didn't last more than a year or so on this service and one or two were visible parked up at OOC bereft of nameplates at the end of the 60s. 

 

 

Having known and, in later years, worked with a number of people from both operating and traction engineering backgrounds who worked on WR dieselisation planning and implementation I think you're missing several salient points.   The WR consistently planned its dieselisation programmes on an area basis although the areas for dmu introduction didn't accord with those for complete dieselisation because of the need to rapidly modernise local passenger train operations and reduce day-to-day costs.  Thus that Birmingham scheme you mentioned replaced 40 steam engines and 5 railcars with 33 x 3 car sets (of two basic types) plus the 7 SPUs which meant not only the withdrawal of 40 steam engines and 5 railcars  but 106 passenger carrying vehicles replacing 142 - in itself a substantial saving in vehicles.  you also need to take account of service frequencies being increased in many of the WR's DMU schemes as is quickly shown by timetable comparisons.  That scheme as such would have produced substantial savings on its own - 36 fewer passenger vehicles to maintain (41 when you count in the GW railcars) with the modern vehicles being easier and quicker to clean, reduction in siding space needed to stable them (something the WR was generally not bad at removing fairly quickly), considerable reduction in train running costs per mile. plus the immediate saving of 44 posts.  Might not have removed the deficit but the name of the game was reducing it as much as possible while still doing the same job - only closures would, in theory, eliminate it.

 

The big problem with the whole of the WR scheme (although in reality the same can be said for the whole of BR) is that loco requirements were planned against a known traffic base and a lot of that traffic base vanished at an amazing rate - not just down to Beeching.  For example Type 3 orders for the South Wales area dieselisation scheme were based on traffic levels as they were forecast to be when the scheme was planned and locos ordered and traffic vanished as collieries were closed.  Similarly subsequent changes in working - such as the introduction of Block Plan in the early 1970s - reduced loco requirements while closures - such as that of the Eastern and Western Valleys passenger services - released DMU sets.

 

Interestingly judging by later experience I think the Western went much further and a lot sooner than some other Regions - notably the LMR - in reducing overall costs particularly infrastructure and organisationally and that became increasingly obvious right into the 1990s when I was working alongside colleagues doing similar jobs to me on other Regions.  For instance on the Western our Manual of Agreed Pathways (MAP) for special and additional trains in 1990  was not only regularly revised but was actually used.  The equivalent LMR publication at that time still had paths in it for trains worked by 8Fs (and it still did in 1992/3).

 

The decision of BR to abandon diesel hydraulics was mainly down to politics although obviously practicalities were involved.  for example the WR emphasis on designing its main line locos for component exchange at depots to reduce the need for visits to main works was completely different from the ideas of the M&EE 'centre' and of course although the weight differences on the 2,700hp Type 4s (not that the Brush lasted for long at its original horsepower rating) were very different from the very substantial difference (over 30 tons) between the Hymek and the EE Type 3.  The odd thing about it was that when an actual comparison of costs and reliability between the Brush design and the Swindon design was finally carried out it was done in a very uneven way.  There was at that time only one depot on the whole of BR which had an allocation of both types and thus had wholly valid comparative data for locos being used on similar work and maintained by the same people in the same place using the same method of calculating miles per casualty and availability etc.  But that depot was not chosen for comparative purposes - possibly because it was at that time showing far worse figures for the Brush design than for the Swindon design?  

 

Incidentally the early days of Brush Type 4s on the WR were little different from the early days of the various Swindon hydraulics and took far longer to correct.  The automatic slack adjusters on the brakes worked remarkably well and it wasn't unknown for all the brake blocks to catch fire, the engines were unreliable (hence fairly early derating to reduce failures), and a string of minor design faults were still being tackled a decade later,  Compared with 'Lion' the Brush Type 4 was not a good design.  The WR"s allocation went initially to the Birmingham route partially in view of the upcoming Regional boundary changes leading to a desire to avoid what in effect would amount to out-basing of WR locos at depots where the area-by-area dieselisation programme had not yet commenced as far as maintenance facilities were concerned (and of course it never commenced at its original planned level such as the number of Type 3s originally planned).

 

But all of that doesn't really matter - it had been decided to standardise on diesel electrics, even if some very bad ones were still being built.  and equally oddly ina number of cases some really good and reliable diesel electric classes were not being replicated while poorer, more troublesome designs were.  As ever he who called the shots made the decisions, be they good or bad - hence the large b number of Class 24s 25s despite their comparing badly with the two BRC&W classes.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but dieselisation across BR has to be seen in its original context and many loco orders (in terms of number, not necessarily types) also need to be seen in that context.  Of all the Regions the Southern probably got it nearest to right with its original plan but even that partially fell apart with Regional boundary changes and traffic pattern changes.

[The Johnster]

Listen to this man, people; he knows what he was talking about.  
 

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Listen to this man, people; he knows what he was talking about.  
 

 

Indeed - it's all fascinating stuff and great that we learn all this. 

 

The one area I was getting at which has not been mentioned was the ability of the new traction to be diagrammed far more effectively than steam, taking account of the 'switch on/switch off' ability of the new stock compared with the laborious and antiquated (though thoroughly entertaining) processes with steam. It seems the planners did not take full advantage of these factors in their costings and savings - and indeed the ability to work across regions with the same loco - hindsight is a great thing but I guess it took time for planners to develop the knowledge, whist if some (or a lot) of the new stock was unreliable that's another factor - there is also the speed and level of redundancies required. I just get the feeling that more savings could have been made, earlier in the process. 

 

I understand the first orders for Hymeks were won on cost - however the costs which subsequently emerged for BR built type 4 hydraulics exceeded estimate by a large percentage. Were the Hymeks and 37s at Canton (I'm guessing you were referring to Canton?) used on comparable work? 

 

Presumably the extra weight of the class 37s helped with braking trains in the Valleys (although I recall reports of one lying on it's side part way down an embankment for many months after a derailment (not sure if it was a runaway issue).

Edited April 27, 2020 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

11 hours ago, David C said:

Politics aside (fascinating though it is), getting back to first few posts on this thread, the 82xxx class locos which were based briefly at Newton Abbott in the mid 1950s worked the Kingsbridge branch as well as the Moretonhampstead line. There's a not very good photo of two of them together on RMWeb somewhere or other ...  Its the reason I acquired a 1:76 scale version for Woodstowe ....

 

82001 was built in 1952 and only a very few years old by the time of my chosen period (mid 1950s). I reckoned it would have been a bit dirty, but not that unkempt and that is how I weathered it. Whilst browsing in the Model Railway Club’s library one evening sometime later, I came across a photo of it on a goods train on the Moretonhamstead branch in about 1955/6. It was immaculate!

 

David C

 

 

 

Looks great. When were these moved away? 

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

Indeed - it's all fascinating stuff and great that we learn all this. 

 

The one area I was getting at which has not been mentioned was the ability of the new traction to be diagrammed far more effectively than steam, taking account of the 'switch on/switch off' ability of the new stock compared with the laborious and antiquated (though thoroughly entertaining) processes with steam. It seems the planners did not take full advantage of these factors in their costings and savings - and indeed the ability to work across regions with the same loco - hindsight is a great thing but I guess it took time for planners to develop the knowledge, whist if some (or a lot) of the new stock was unreliable that's another factor - there is also the speed and level of redundancies required. I just get the feeling that more savings could have been made, earlier in the process. 

 

I understand the first orders for Hymeks were won on cost - however the costs which subsequently emerged for BR built type 4 hydraulics exceeded estimate by a large percentage. Were the Hymeks and 37s at Canton (I'm guessing you were referring to Canton?) used on comparable work? 

 

Presumably the extra weight of the class 37s helped with braking trains in the Valleys (although I recall reports of one lying on it's side part way down an embankment for many months after a derailment (not sure if it was a runaway issue).

Judging by diagrams of the time (as far as the WR is concerned) I would have said the opposite was the case,  By the early-mid part of the 1960s as fleet sizes were becoming settled the WR was diagramming both Type 2 and Type 4 locos in cyclic diagrams involving in some cases as many as 5 locos.  And even the earliest Type 4 diagrams for the D6XX were fairly intensive in terms of hours in traffic compared with the steam diagrams they replaced.  The WR in fact paid a lot of attention to trying to get the best content in loco diagrams and the (diagramming) Research Section at Paddington, along with the dieselisation team, spent time seeking to tighten diagrams and get more work out of individual turns.  

 

Don't overlook the major changes, and savings, which occurred on shed and in traffic where the time required for turn round attention and various exams was drastically reduced - as was the labour force for a lot of such work although it was in part replaced by a need for more technically trained tradesmen.  the time saved by not having to clean, and later relight, fires involving large quantities of ash and coal simply vanished allowing more time to be in traffic.  But as with any diagramming situation you can only do what the traffic situation lets you do.  if there isn't sufficient intensity of work or a lack of the right sort of balancing trains you won't get the best (i.e. most efficient) diagrams. 

 

If you think diagramming in those days wasn't making best use of traction resources you'd find a comparison with SNCF practice - even into the 21st century - a major eye opener.  In the mid '090s Brian Perren, who used to write extensively about SNCF and had numerous contacts there,  was a regular visitor to my office and always brought me a set of the latest TGV diagrams - and they were laughable in terms of efficient use of trains.   Their freight diagramming after their loco fleets were 'sectorised' was even worse and there were SNCF folk coming to see us to ask how their loco shortages (which mainly meant that although they had more than enough they weren't in the right places)  could be sorted out.   NS had been almost as bad until an ex-airline boss took charge during the early/mid 1990s and they underwent a radical shake up in respect of train utilisation and diagramming

 

As far as traincrew savings went the hit overall was pretty massive - as it was in most places on BR and elsewhere.   But it was always constrained by the Manning agreements, particularly the 1957 Manning Agreement, which still meant quite a lot of jobs had to be double manned for various reasons ranging through from train heating boilers to safety reasons where a single man in the cab would be unsighted for various jobs.  What would undoubtedly have saved more money more quickly would have been earlier introduction of ETH but I think that change was seen as so massive and complex it simply got shoved away waiting for something to happen later - whenever 'later' happened to be.

 

Incidentally the diesel electric vs hydraulic comparison was between the 1000s and the Brush type 4 although as you correctly identified Canton was the only depot at that time with a maintenance allocation of both types.

[MidlandRed]

Stationmaster, we're really indebted to your insight in this matter. The only thing I would add to this is the level of inter regional loco utilisation seemed to increase in the later 60s/earlier 70s - eg class 37s running into Bescot from the ER became more commonplace whereas such locos were unheard of earlier. Maybe the WR was more 'self contained' in that context, though I guess (with obvious exceptions) for instance a class 47 is a class 47 whether it's based at Gateshead or Canton, whereas a 52 is clearly more WR centric (though even they got to Bescot in the mid 70s)! 

 

The Birmingham WR DMU schemes could surely have saved more steam locos (they probably did, ultimately). 

Edited April 27, 2020 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

The Hymeks were seen as main line mixed traffic locos, replacements for Halls, a job they were very competent at and a pleasure to work on.  There were a further 100 on order that did not materialise because Beyer Peacock went under; these were I’m told to be lower geared freight locos to replace the well entrenched 56xx in South Wales.  As we’ve seen, the WR got D68xx EE type 3s instead, and while these proved very successful on the mineral traffic, the region regarded them as freight haulers, unlike the ER and NER allocations which were used in a more mixed traffic role.  The WR did experiment in 1966 with double headed 37s on borrowed Deltic bogies on high speed runs between Paddington and Bristol via Bath, so there was an awareness that they could be used in a passenger role, this was not done for another two decades; 37s were simply not regarded as passenger locos. 
 

The WR even took on 31s, an inferior loco to 37s, in the 70s as Hymek replacements while lines of 37s were stored out of use at Margam.  It made little sense to me; Canton got 25s to replace it’s Hymeks, and these were hopelessly inadequate. 
 

Inter regional utilisation certainly improved during the 70s, but on the WR it came in the form of replacing withdrawn hydraulics with imported diesel electrics, 25s, inadequately, for 35s, 31s for 22s and 35s, 33s for 42s, and 50s for 52s.  We exported some 37s to the ScR. 

 

[Phil Bullock]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The Hymeks were seen as main line mixed traffic locos, replacements for Halls, a job they were very competent at and a pleasure to work on.  There were a further 100 on order that did not materialise because Beyer Peacock went under; these were I’m told to be lower geared freight locos to replace the well entrenched 56xx in South Wales.  As we’ve seen, the WR got D68xx EE type 3s instead, and while these proved very successful on the mineral traffic, the region regarded them as freight haulers, unlike the ER and NER allocations which were used in a more mixed traffic role.  The WR did experiment in 1966 with double headed 37s on borrowed Deltic bogies on high speed runs between Paddington and Bristol via Bath, so there was an awareness that they could be used in a passenger role, this was not done for another two decades; 37s were simply not regarded as passenger locos. 
 

The WR even took on 31s, an inferior loco to 37s, in the 70s as Hymek replacements while lines of 37s were stored out of use at Margam.  It made little sense to me; Canton got 25s to replace it’s Hymeks, and these were hopelessly inadequate. 
 

Inter regional utilisation certainly improved during the 70s, but on the WR it came in the form of replacing withdrawn hydraulics with imported diesel electrics, 25s, inadequately, for 35s, 31s for 22s and 35s, 33s for 42s, and 50s for 52s.  We exported some 37s to the ScR. 

 

 

And 46s for 43s....

[MidlandRed]

2 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

 

And 46s for 43s....

 

Indeed - and this situation I find very curious. In the early 60s, D34-D42 and D154 were allocated to Bristol (they'd gone by sometime in 1966, presumably replaced by class 47). As at least one started at Barrow Road these were, presumably the south west's contribution to north east to south west services. However did the change to 'proper' WR locos still  happen as in steam days at Bristol? And also Newton Abbott in some cases?

 

It certainly seemed that way from spotting observations on several visits to Bristol, going round Bath Road shed and holidays in Teignmouth from 1967 onwards. 

 

However north of Bristol those services were almost exclusively in the hands of class 45 and some 46 in that era, from either Holbeck or Nottingham Division. 

 

There seems to have remained a very 'region centric' steam based approach to this until surprisingly late - and although the 46s clearly did replace Warship class 43, once again from spotting notes they didn't appear at Paddington. In 1969 the sea wall at Teignmouth appeared almost a constant procession of 22, 42 and 52 (with some 47), plus (remarkably few) DMUs - I will dig out my remaining spotting notes from that era and check later! 

What did Cardiff use their class 46s on? Presumably Laira used their's on NE/SW (although they mostly started on the WR at Bath Road). 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by MidlandRed

[Phil Bullock]

8 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

Indeed - and this situation I find very curious. In the early 60s, D34-D42 and D154 were allocated to Bristol (they'd gone by sometime in 1966, presumably replaced by class 47). As at least one started at Barrow Road these were, presumably the south west's contribution to north east to south west services. However did the change to 'proper' WR locos still  happen as in steam days at Bristol? And also Newton Abbott in some cases?

 

It certainly seemed that way from spotting observations on several visits to Bristol, going round Bath Road shed and holidays in Teignmouth from 1967 onwards. 

 

However north of Bristol those services were almost exclusively in the hands of class 45 and some 46 in that era, from either Holbeck or Nottingham Division. 

 

There seems to have remained a very 'region centric' steam based approach to this until surprisingly late - and although the 46s clearly did replace Warship class 43, once again from spotting notes they didn't appear at Paddington. In 1969 the sea wall at Teignmouth appeared almost a constant procession of 22, 42 and 52 (with some 47), plus (remarkably few) DMUs - I will dig out my remaining spotting notes from that era and check later! 

What did Cardiff use their class 46s on? Presumably Laira used their's on NE/SW (although they mostly started on the WR at Bath Road). 

 

 

In my time visiting BTM (68-71) there were certainly many loco changes there on NE-SW changes. Bath Road first acquired 46s in 69 but IIRC these still largely worked northwards although no doubt a few started to spread their wings westwards - and then more arrived in 71, with the hydraulic rot really setting in from 72 onwards when Laira and Canton started to acquire them. 

 

My spotting notes at Abbotswood make interesting reading for type 4 workings north of Bristol...

 

16/5/70: Class 43: 0 Class 45: 5 Class 46: 6 Class 47: 16 Class 52:0 

 

6/6/70: Class 43: 1 Class 45: 4 Class 46: 2 Class 47: 10 Class 52: 1

 

20/6/70: Class 43: 1 Class 45: 8 Class 46: 4 Class 47: 4 Class 52: 1

 

9/7/73: Class 43: 0 Class 45: 5 Class 46: 2 Class 47: 7 Class 52: 0

 

16/4/74: Class 43: 0 Class 45: 1 Class 46: 13 Class 47: 11 Class 52: 2

 

Which I suspect reflects the 46s were more dominant by 74 as more were allocated to the WR and 45s were converted to ETH whereas NE-SW trains were not at the top of the list for modernisation.

 

 

[Andy Kirkham]

From my recollections as a spotter at Temple Meads, I think it was 1970 when regular loco changes ceased and diesel-electrics began working through to the West Country. It happened at about the same time Temple Meads was resignalled and I thought at the time that the two changes might have been connected, but  I guess it was coincidental.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Andy Kirkham

[David C]

Midland Red: 11 82xxx locos allocated to Newton Abbott on various dates from January 1955. All had moved away by October 1956. See Pannier Tank's post on page 1 of this thread and http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=class&id=726202&type=S&page=alloc for full details of the locos' allocations before withdrawal. 

Warning: you waste hours on this site - I have!

David C

[slilley]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The Hymeks were seen as main line mixed traffic locos, replacements for Halls, a job they were very competent at and a pleasure to work on.  There were a further 100 on order that did not materialise because Beyer Peacock went under; these were I’m told to be lower geared freight locos to replace the well entrenched 56xx in South Wales.  As we’ve seen, the WR got D68xx EE type 3s instead, and while these proved very successful on the mineral traffic, the region regarded them as freight haulers, unlike the ER and NER allocations which were used in a more mixed traffic role.  The WR did experiment in 1966 with double headed 37s on borrowed Deltic bogies on high speed runs between Paddington and Bristol via Bath, so there was an awareness that they could be used in a passenger role, this was not done for another two decades; 37s were simply not regarded as passenger locos. 
 

The WR even took on 31s, an inferior loco to 37s, in the 70s as Hymek replacements while lines of 37s were stored out of use at Margam.  It made little sense to me; Canton got 25s to replace it’s Hymeks, and these were hopelessly inadequate. 
 

Inter regional utilisation certainly improved during the 70s, but on the WR it came in the form of replacing withdrawn hydraulics with imported diesel electrics, 25s, inadequately, for 35s, 31s for 22s and 35s, 33s for 42s, and 50s for 52s.  We exported some 37s to the ScR. 

 

I have to query your idea that BP went out of business because they did not get another Hymek order. Dont forget they were producing Class 25s well after the decision to only build 101 Hymeks. They did not cease trading until 1966. NBL went into liquidation in 1962. A sorry tale if ever there was one.

Edited April 28, 2020 by slilley

[MidlandRed]

As well as the 25s they build Claytons as sub contractors (the later NE/E Region ones - replaced by late build class 20s in some cases). 

[DCB]

On 27/04/2020 at 12:45, David C said:

Politics aside (fascinating though it is), getting back to first few posts on this thread, the 82xxx class locos which were based briefly at Newton Abbott in the mid 1950s worked the Kingsbridge branch as well as the Moretonhampstead line. There's a not very good photo of two of them together on RMWeb somewhere or other ...  Its the reason I acquired a 1:76 scale version for Woodstowe ....

 

82001 was built in 1952 and only a very few years old by the time of my chosen period (mid 1950s). I reckoned it would have been a bit dirty, but not that unkempt and that is how I weathered it. Whilst browsing in the Model Railway Club’s library one evening sometime later, I came across a photo of it on a goods train on the Moretonhamstead branch in about 1955/6. It was immaculate!

 

David C

 

 

Shininess tended to be a function time since last works visit rather than time since construction unless the locos were groomed for certain turns, Kings were usually pampered,  small passenger tanks often had an oily rag rubbed over them, shunters had the dirt cleaned off the number plate so they knew which loco was which.   Most locos had a works visit every 75 000 miles or so 15 months for bigger locos maybe a lot longer for less used types.    Where the age thing crept in was the repairs, double skinning on GWR locos tanks where the tank leaked and it was easier to apply a patch plate than cut it out and weld new in, and in the case of Standards they tended to gather dents and ripples in the panels, and lose bits like lubricator drive inspection panels.

Conversely after a damn good rain storm even an unkempt goods engine could look quite presentable.    Not suggesting you spray the entire layout with gloss varnish to represent a rainy day.   Hang on a minute?   How about painting everything in shades of grey and gloss varnishing it?  It would look just like those old Kodak Brownie shots of 1950s holidays, Mum Dad three kids, dog, Auntie Flo the Austin A30.  I'm rambling. Time for a lie down.